Sortition process

@Matthew Cropp suggests "using a random-number generator selecting names from a spreadsheet or other database. Wondering if the Loomio user list is something we could export to CSV and use?" Does that sound good?

The Loomio list makes sense because those are members who have opted in to governance discussions. I think if we use this approach we should send an announcement to people on the Mastodon instance encouraging them to register on Loomio. Thoughts?

@Matt Noyes

Sounds reasonable. I assume that in future years we'll put a system in place to make sure that the same person doesn't serve for two cycles in a row? Do we want to make sure that everyone has been invited to serve once before a repeat name comes up?

@Dynamic Is there an easy way to do that?

@Matt Noyes

I think the easiest way would be to have a spreadsheet column to indicate when a person has served, and then exclude everyone who has a "has served" date. (Or alternatively everyone who served last year, or in the past five years, or whatever.)

@Matt Noyes I think this becomes a question of how to select or generate a random number that is “provably fair” in a transparent or group setting. Perhaps we could include a Loomio poll that generates some entropy or randomness itself?

@Andrew Escobar (Andres) How would that work?

@Matt Noyes I’m still think out loud here. Perhaps a ranked choice poll of four random numbers, with the resulting order creating a longer number?

A “provably fair” random number would be a complex process. I am simply considering an alternative to one person generating a random number. Perhaps the solution is as simple as having a member of each WG submit a random number and then combining them.

@Andrew Escobar (Andres)

This feels like it might be overkill for what we're doing, but if it's not too complicated, it seems reasonable.

I don't think we should overload people with Loomio polls, though. Like, I think people understand that voting is important on questions that matter to them, but even in decision polls, turnout can be quite low. A poll just to generate randomness feels like it might be too esoteric for people to care about...

@Dynamic I agree.

I think the odds of someone trying to skew the random number generation are negligible, it's not like people are vying to get these spots! ;-) Still, it would be cool if Loomio had a sortition function you could run for a particular group and its members. Any objection to going ahead and exporting the Loomio membership list?

@Matt Noyes

No objections from me : )

So, the proposal describes a three step process:

1. we select a jury of 9 from the membership list [we can do this by sortition with a random number generator]

2. people selected [for the jury] can choose to opt out, [we continue until we get 9 people]

3. [this step was implied but not stated: the jury selects, by sortition, 4 people to serve as At Large members]

4. once the jury has been formed there will be three meetings:

   1. an orientation session, to review the bylaws and election procedures

   2. a meeting with candidates for OC positions

   3. a meeting to deliberate and vote. [...] The jury will select At Large members, taking into consideration the values and mission of the cooperative, particularly with respect to diversity, inclusion, and equity.

@Matt Noyes

Thanks for posting this. I keep forgetting that there's the extra jury step in the process.

What all does this change about the work we need to do?

I just tried exporting group data as csv but got an error message saying there is an Internal Server Error and that Loomio has been notified.

Hi all, waiting on a reply from Loomio crew. I was able to download a JSON file, but it had an error so I was not able to convert it to csv. I think our steps are:

1. run a random number generator to identify say 18 potential jurors;

2. contact them to see if they are willing to serve

3. meet with jurors to go over the process of selection

4. run the random number generator again to identify maybe 10 potential at large members

5. contact them to see if they are willing to serve

6. the jury meets to select the number we need (four, I think, because we have 3 functional working groups: Community, Tech, Finance)

7. hold the first meeting of the OC

It seems like a good idea for people in this group to accompany the jury through this process, since we have been more involved to this point. But the decisions are all theirs to make.

Does this sound okay?

Finally got the membership list in a spreadsheet, names and emails, numbered so we can do a random number generator sortition. Anyone want to do the actual sorting? We'll need an email message to send them that explains the idea...

@Matt Noyes

I can take care of the sorting (but *not* the email). I'll DM you with my email address so you can send me the spreadsheet.

Update: I have emailed the first nine people, two accepted. Just sent another round of emails. I am thinking we can settle for seven or even five jurors, so as not to drag this process out forever?